More campus organizations apply for funding

BASE BUDGET ALLOCATIONS The Undergraduate
Students Association Council approved $128, 245.75 in funding for
student organizations, and $56,225.57 for USAC offices. For the
breakdown of individual USAC offices, see the pie chart.Click here to see the bigger version of the infographic
Click here to see the bigger version of the
infographic SOURCE: http://students.asucla.ucla.edu/Funding/budget_board_info.html
Original graphic by JOAN ONG/Daily Bruin Senior Staff Web
adaptation by MIKE OUYANG and CHRISTINE TAN/Daily Bruin Senior
Staff

By Robert Salonga
Daily Bruin Staff

In the Undergraduate Students Association Council’s first
base budget allocations since changing its by-laws last spring, the
Budget Review Committee received the most applications for funding
in recent history.

“There were more diverse groups that applied,” said
USAC President Karren Lane.

The 2000-01 USAC amended its bylaws regarding student group
funding to comply with University of California guidelines. The
guidelines require that funding from mandatory student fees must be
distributed in a content-neutral manner.

In addition, last year’s council modified its definition
of which student groups were eligible for funding. Previously, the
bylaws stated that only USAC-sponsored groups ““ formerly
known as Student Advocacy Groups ““ could apply for funding.
The new bylaws allow all officially recognized student
organizations to apply.

As a result, the number of student group applications the BRC
received rose to 43 this year ““ 13 more than last year.

“In terms of bylaw changes, it was just one step, but the
BRC this year really implemented the new bylaws (and clarified) the
process,” Lane said, referring to the procedure by which
student groups must abide to receive a base budget.

But the process created some stumbling blocks. Because there
were more groups applying while the amount of funding available was
the same as last year, the majority of groups received less than
what they were used to getting in previous years.

“This was a hard process, and we were trying to be as fair
as possible when considering every single group,” said Budget
Review Director Mohammad Mertaban.

A base budget is the basic funding a student group uses in order
to operate. This money is often spent on advertising, supplies,
graphics and flyers for that group’s programs.

To be eligible for a base budget, an organization must be
registered with the Center for Student Programming. Every year,
usually near the end of May, a budget workshop is advertised and
held to train groups on how to write a base budget proposal.

The deadline for the proposals is usually in July, at which
point groups sign up for one of the BRC’s scheduled budget
hearings, which took place July 16-18.

A group’s written proposal must have sufficient narrative
and numerical details to explain why they should receive funding,
said USAC Finance Committee Chair T.J. Cordero.

“All the information we use for allocations is based off
(a student group’s) proposal and budget hearing, so the
quality of the proposal cannot be more emphasized,” Cordero
said.

Also taken into heavy consideration, said Cordero, is a
group’s ability to “fulfill the university’s
mission to provide educational and social enrichment to the greater
student body.”

Mertaban said that groups should provide undergraduate
recruitment and a link to the campus for potential Bruins. He also
said collaboration with more than one student organization was key
in being considered for funding.

“The idea is to outreach so that others outside of the
group can benefit,” Mertaban said. “It’s
important for a group to recognize another group’s programs,
because it shows a willingness to recognize them.”

If a group can sufficiently display these qualities, he said, it
was given priority when being considered for a base budget. He also
said USAC officers and commissions were automatically given
priority because students elect them and their positions require
them to engage in outreach activities.

However, one USAC officer and one commissioner received
“poor” ratings on their base budget evaluations.
According to Mertaban, General Representative David Dahle was not
present at his budget hearing, and instead, sent a representative
who could not sufficiently answer some of the BRC’s
questions.

Dahle said he had to attend to personal matters, but was
satisfied with the allocation his office received.

Facilities Commissioner Jeremy McKenzie, who received the other
“poor” rating, was unable to turn in his
commission’s proposal by the July 12 deadline, nor was he
able to attend a budget hearing. As a result of the late
submission, his commission had 5 percent of its base budget taken
away.

McKenzie could not be reached for comment.

“It was disappointing,” Lane said. “USAC
officers should be as responsible as the groups who apply. The same
criteria are used.”

One comfort, Lane said, is that both council members
acknowledged that they couldn’t dedicate the amount of time
needed for a satisfactory proposal and that this recognition was a
step in the right direction.

Groups denied funding were addressed in the final base budget
proposal as violating Article VI.C.4.b.1.b of the USAC bylaws,
because they did not “stimulate on-campus discussion and
debate on a variety of issues.”

Lane said that some groups’ programs were social and had
no educational background, and thus could not be considered for
funding.

“This ensures that money funded by student fees help out
all of campus. Everything we do should be educational,” Lane
said.